Neander's Law
From Six Days to ...
Is the Bible inerrant?
Thoughts on college
Lifelong Learning
Universal pacifism?
Godly Headship
NHS Induction 2010
Books of Interest
Five Tests of Joseph Smith

Why We Believe Authority over Men and Women in the Church is Biblically Restricted to Men

This is an attempt to give an explanation of why many of us in the congregation are urging that the constitution that Western Mennonite Church adopts recognize “male headship,” which implies to us that some positions of leadership in a properly constituted Christian congregation are not open to being occupied by women.  This cannot be a complete statement of the evidence and reasoning that move us to the position we hold.  But we want to state some of the most important reasons.  (Note:  The footnote links in the text below may not work.  In that case you may scroll down to them at the end of this page.)

I.  Why we believe in male headship in the family

The first question we must deal with is our motivation.  Why would a Christian who you would expect to believe that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28) promote the view that women should be restricted in what roles of leadership they are permitted to fill in a Christian church congregation?

This will probably be hard for those who presently hold the egalitarian position to believe, but we believe that the motivation of every one of us at WMC who now hold this complementarian position is to honor God and his Word, the Bible.  As men we believe we are not trying to get or maintain a position of power over women.  As women we believe we are not acting in fear of asserting our equality and demanding our rights.  We will freely acknowledge that we are tempted to sin like everybody else, and sometimes we do sin, perhaps even in these ways.  But we believe that it is possible to hold our position just because the Bible teaches it, and we believe it does.  And in our best moments, that is why we hold it.  May God examine our hearts and reveal to us if our reason for our stand is anything other than a desire that God’s Word be honored.  So we say to our opponents:  Please have the grace to judge us at our best, rather than at our worst.  We will try to be just as gracious to you.

We believe both in male-female equality and in male headship.  To avoid misunderstanding, which is very difficult to avoid on this very emotional subject, let us define what we mean by these terms.[1]

Male-female equalityMan and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally.

Male headshipIn the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.

The model of headship is our Lord, the Head of the church, who gave Himself for us.  The Holy Spirit through Paul commands in Ephesians 5:25-26:  “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy . . .”  The antithesis to male headship is male domination. By male domination we mean the assertion of the man’s will over the woman’s will, heedless of her spiritual equality, her rights, and her value. This essay will be completely misunderstood if the distinction between male headship and male domination is not kept in mind throughout.

Now let’s answer the question raised by Galatians 3:28:

28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[2]

Is Paul in this passage writing a principle that abolishes patriarchal role distinctions and makes men and women interchangeable, at least interchangeable in leadership in the church, if not the home?  Many who hold the egalitarian position take this passage as doing this very thing.  But listen to the words of Millard Erickson, an egalitarian on the Board of Reference of Christians for Biblical Equality (http://www.cbeinternational.org), an organization founded to spread the egalitarian position.  In his book, Christian Theology (1998), on page 565 in his section “The Universality of Humanity,” Dr. Erickson says, 

Probably the most direct declaration that women stand on the same footing as men in the sight of God, as far as salvation is concerned, is the classic text in Galatians 3:28:  'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'  This verse is sometimes taken out of context and used to address issues that Paul is not talking about. He is not discussing equality in terms of employment nor the role of women in places of service within the church, for example, as ordained ministers.  Rather, he is treating the important issue of justification by faith, the individual's status before God in terms of personal righteousness.  Paul is saying that, with respect to personal salvation, there is no difference in God's treatment of male or female.  All who have been baptized in Christ Jesus have put on Christ (v.27).[,[4]

We agree with Dr. Erickson on the meaning of this passage, but not because authorities we like also agree.  We believe it because following widely agreed-upon principles of interpretation lead reasonably to this conclusion.  To see this look at the context, the verses that immediately precede verse 28:

24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Here is what Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. John Piper, editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (free PDF of book here) say in Chapter 2, answering what they pose as Question #26 [material below in brackets is added by us]

26. Doesn't Paul's statement that "There is . . . neither male nor female . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) take away gender as a basis for distinction of roles in the church?

No. Most evangelicals still agree that this text is not a warrant for homosexuality. [If men and women are interchangeable, then either one must be equally qualified to be a marriage partner of either.]  In other words, most of us do not force Paul's "neither male nor female" beyond what we know from other passages he would approve. For example, we know from Romans 1:24-32 that Paul does not mean for the created order of different male and female roles to be overthrown by Galatians 3:28.

The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29).

This last blessing is especially significant, namely, the equality of being a fellow-heir with men of the promises. In 1 Peter 3:1-7, the blessing of being joint heirs "of the gracious gift of life" is connected with the exhortation for women to submit to their husbands (v. 1) and for their husbands to treat their wives "with respect as the weaker partner." In other words, Peter saw no conflict between the neither-male-nor-female principle regarding our inheritance and the headship-submission principle regarding our roles. Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.[5]

We take both Peter here and Paul, as we will show next, to be pushing us to the position that we now hold.

One of the most persuasive arguments to us is the following passage, 1 Timothy 2, along with Genesis 1-3 that the Apostle Paul connects it to:

1    I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--

2    for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

3    This is good, and pleases God our Savior,

4    who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

5    For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6    who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.

7    And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

[We note that though Paul uses the pronoun “I” throughout this passage, he does so as “a herald and an apostle.”  He implies he has “come to a knowledge of the truth.”  He claims to be “a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.”  We hear him speaking throughout this passage with apostolic authority, not just giving his personal opinion.]

8    I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

9    I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

[Here some suggest that by saying “I do not permit . . .” Paul is just giving his personal opinion, which may be wrong.  However, this is not the only option permitted by this language.  He could just as easily be saying in effect, “Speaking as one who ‘ was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles,’ I do not permit . . .”.  In the context it is clear to us that this is exactly what Paul is saying.  Added to that is this:  Just before Paul says, “I do not permit . . .”, he says “A woman should . . .”  This latter phrase is not an appeal to his opinion, but an appeal to some higher ethical authority, presumably God himself.  His “I do not permit . . .” is then clearly given because of what this higher authority says.]

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

[Here Paul is saying that one reason for restricting women from authority over men is because of an order God established by creating Adam first and then Eve before the Fall.  Paul bases his argument here firmly on the account of the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis and so we follow him there. Along with him we find compelling evidence that God ordained male headship in Creation before the Fall.]

15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.[6]

What we find in Genesis 1-3 is well summarized in the words of William Mouser of the International Council for Gender Studies[7]:

1.   Adam was created first.

2.   Adam was given the Garden Mandate [before the woman was on the scene.].

3.   Woman was created from the man.

4.   Woman was created for the man.

5.   Woman is a divine gift to the man.

6.   Adam named woman.

7.   Man initiates marriage.

8.   Man/woman from their sinless beginning picture Christ/Church.

[Note that all of the above preceded the Fall.]

9.   NT theology everywhere assumes male headship based on Genesis 1-3.

10. All people are either damned or saved via male headship.[8]

If, as the above evidence seems to firmly establish, male headship did not begin at the Fall as part of the Curse but was part of the created order, what did happen at the Fall?  We believe that in each case, something that was already in God’s plan was made more difficult:  working the soil for the man, childbirth and her relationship to her head, her husband, for the woman.

II.  Why we believe that male headship in the family requires male headship in the church, the household of God

Immediately after 1 Timothy 2 quoted above Paul follows in chapter 3 with qualifications of overseers (elders) and deacons, of which the elders are clearly assumed to be male.  Since the elders are persons with authority over the church, only males would fit in with Paul’s statement, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.”  After mentioning the qualifications of deacons, Paul says this in 1 Timothy 3:14-15:

14  Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that,

15  if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It seems clear to us that Paul makes a parallel between the church and the first household of Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2.  There he defends his assertion of male headship in the church by appealing to the headship God established in the first family before the Fall.  He now reinforces this parallel by calling the church the “household of God,” a family term.

Some agree that headship in the family is to be male, as I Cor 11:3[9] clearly says, but insist that it is not required in the church.  But think what it would mean for this to be the case.  The authorities in the congregation exercise authority over the flock, which includes husbands and wives.  If a married woman were to exercise authority over the congregation, she could be exercising authority over her own husband and also over the husbands of other wives.  How could this situation be reconciled with male headship in the family?  It seems to us genuinely contradictory.

Of course there are many other passages that bear importantly on this subject.  What about the accounts of Deborah, Phoebe, Junia(s?), and Priscilla, for example?  Some of these are believed by those who hold the egalitarian position to contradict or make obsolete those we have cited above.  We believe that the Scriptures do not contradict each other in what they teach, although the behavior of individuals recorded in the Scriptures sometimes contradicted it or caused less than desirable situations to occur.  In other cases we think egalitarians draw conclusions that are unwarranted from the silence of some scriptures.  We do not believe Peter, Paul, or even Jesus considered male headship obsolete.[10]  We do not accept the principle now or in the past that “Whatever is, is right.”  So what happened in the history of Israel that seems to be an exception to male headship is not necessarily to be taken as disproof of it.  But in all cases we are open to free discussion in which our arguments are critically examined by anyone according to the commonly accepted rules of reason and interpretation of texts.

We take for granted the principle of the essential harmony of Scripture and believe there is a genuine, beautiful harmony among all the passages that relate to this subject.  After all, these are the documents that Jesus used as his weapon of choice against God’s enemy from the beginning, Satan himself[11]; the documents that he said “cannot be broken”[12]; that we are “fools and slow of heart not to believe” all of[13]; and that have the stamp of authority of Jesus’ own hand-picked Apostles.  Thus we believe it is extremely risky for Christians to suggest that these documents teach false teaching.  The sounds of God’s Word echo all through these Scriptures.  Let the interpreter beware!


In conclusion, to be in submission to Scripture we are compelled to the conviction that the positions in the church where there is direct teaching or other authority exercised over men are to be reserved for Godly men.  These positions include the position of (1) pastor, (2) elder, (3) congregational chairman and vice chairman, and (4) youth pastor.[14] 


If the particular organizational model under consideration uses other language but has officers teaching men or exercising authority over men, we believe these officers also should be men.


III.  APPENDIX A  Ten Reasons for Finding Male Headship in Genesis 1-3

[Note:  The explanations below have been adapted from William Mouser’s version.  In several places the wording has been significantly altered and text added.]

1.   Adam was created first.

That Adam was created first is a reason the Apostle Paul gives for denying women the exercise of authority over men or to teach them.  In 1 Timothy 2 Paul doesn’t say why being created first makes this so and this has puzzled Bible students.  Some egalitarians have tried to argue that if being created first gives a claim to authority, then the animals should be Adam’s head, since they were before him.  But while the Hebrews recognized a special authority in the first-born, it was the first-born son who had this, even if there were daughters born before him.  Since humans are created in God’s image whereas animals are not, the Hebrews would not have considered animals on the same level with humans.  It would have been incomprehensible to them to consider animals eligible to exercise authority over humans.

One of the more novel egalitarian twists given Paul's words is to assume there was a Gnostic party in the Ephesian church who supposedly were teaching that Eve in particular and females in general had a claim to authority over men (see I Suffer Not a Woman:  Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, by Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger.  For an analysis and rebuttal of this idea see Stephen M. Baugh's critique of Kroegers’ thesis, "The Apostle among the Amazons," here.

We can see that Adam's creation first has implications for the question of headship when we remember that woman did not yet exist when the Garden Mandate was given:  Solitary Adam was charged with keeping and cultivating the Garden; solitary Adam was prohibited from eating from the Tree.  Thus, he not only predates woman in his existence, he predates her in his stewardship under God.

The Apostle Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, God’s chosen instrument to spread his truth to the Gentiles, whose writings in the Bible are God-breathed, finds male headship in Adam’s creation before Eve.  Shouldn’t this settle the matter for Christians?  But there is more.

2.   Adam was given the Garden Mandate.

The account suggests by both what it says and doesn’t say that the woman did not get her own separate Garden Mandate.  This suggests Adam's mandate comes to her through her relationship to him.  This agrees with his creation first:  he is her head.  Adam is responsible to God for the woman; she is responsible to God through Adam.

Egalitarians object that the Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1 is given to man and woman equally, without making a distinction of differing roles.  But even if we look at Genesis 1 by itself, that view is questionable on the grounds that "Adam" is the name not only of the man, but also man and woman together.  But, when the events of Genesis 1 and 2 are looked at in chronological order, it is obvious that the Dominion Mandate came after and is an extension or restatement of the Garden Mandate, for which solitary Adam is insufficient.  Once the "not-goodness" of his solitary condition is made right by the creation of woman, then and only then does God, in effect, give them the mandate to extend that Garden until it encompasses the entire earth.  As they do this, the headship of man, which was created in the Garden, is part of the extended mandate to subdue and fill the earth.

3.   Woman was created from the man.

Her femininity answers Adam's need for a helper.  He is her reason for being.  As woman, she is understandable in terms to Adam out of whose side she was taken, not the other way round.  She is derivative of him.  But this does not imply she has less dignity as made in God’s image.

4.   Woman was created for the man.

Paul explicitly denies the converse--man is not created for the woman's sake.  Taken together--her being created from him and for him--Paul finds here a headship in the man that he directs the Corinthians (and all churches) to make visible in the concrete symbol of authority on her head when Christians gather for worship (1 Cor. 11).

Egalitarians note that the Hebrew word, “ezer” (“helper”, referring God’s plan for the woman’s role) is used for God in His relationship to creatures, and insist that “ezer”, therefore, cannot convey a sense of subordination of the helper.  However, it does seem that when God “helps” us he is in a sense subordinating himself at that time to the purposes and benefit of those he helps.  This seems inherent in the meaning of “to help.”

Here is what Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. John Piper, editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood say in Chapter 2 (PDF), answering what they pose as Question #45:

45. Isn’t it true that God is called our “helper” numerous times in the Bible with the same word used to describe Eve when she was called a “helper” suitable for man?  Doesn’t that rule out any notion of a uniquely submissive role for her, or even make her more authoritative than the man?

It is true that God is often called our “helper,” but the word itself does not imply anything about rank or authority.  The context must decide whether Eve is to “help” as a strong person who aids a weaker one, or as one who assists a loving leader.  The context makes it very unlikely that helper should be read on the analogy of God’s help, because in Genesis 2:19-20 Adam is caused to seek his “helper” first among the animals.  But the animals will not do, because they are not “fit for him.” So God makes woman “from man.”  Now there is a being who is “fit for him,” sharing his human nature, equal to him in Godlike personhood.  She is infinitely different from an animal, and God highlights her value to man by showing how no animal can fill her role.  Yet in passing through “helpful” animals to woman, God teaches us that the woman is a man’s “helper” in the sense of a loyal and suitable assistant in the life of the garden.  The question seems to assume that because a word (like helper) has certain connotations (“Godlikeness”) in some places it must have them in every place.  This would be like saying that because God is described as one who “works” for us, therefore no human who “works” is responsible to his boss, since the word couldn’t have that meaning when used of God.

5.   Woman is a divine gift to the man.

God brought His last creation to the man and presented her as a gift from a Sovereign to a viceroy (Gen. 2:22).  Proverbs 19:4 teaches that the giving of godly women to men is still a direct act of God. 

6.   Adam named woman.

While the spirit of Adam's naming woman in Genesis 2 is clearly one of joy, excitement, and love, the fact remains that naming in the Bible is an act of dominion, which Adam had already been performing relative to the animals which God also brought before him.  To name something is to discern its character and to take it for one's own.  (Gen. 17:5, 15[15]; 26:20-22[16]; 32:26-28[17]; Ex. 2:10[18]; Matt. 16:18[19]).

7.   Man initiates marriage.

The phrase "for this cause" in Genesis 2:24 points to the content of verses 21-23.  Because woman was made from man, for man, and brought to the man, she should be received by the man.  The human story begins with a wedding, not a birth; and, it is the man's responsibility to restart that story over and over again in the founding of each new home.

8.   Man/woman from their sinless beginning picture Christ/Church.

From the pre-Fall, innocent dawn, God fashioned Adam to picture Christ the Lord and woman to picture the Church built from His bleeding side.  Paul's citation of Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5 shows that sexuality itself is a creaturely image of a cosmic relationship (Christ and the Church) which God had in mind at the very beginning.

9.   NT theology everywhere assumes male headship based on Genesis 1-3.

Ephesians 5 is the key passage, of course, though it is echoed in many other NT passages (1 Peter 3, for example).  Indeed, the headship of man underlies all of Biblical revelation.  The egalitarian premise, however, turns this aspect of that revelation, and in particular Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5, on its head.  If, as egalitarians insist, the goal of Christian marriage is to outgrow the evil of male headship, then the goal of the Church would be to outgrow the authority of Christ.  The head-body relationship of man and wife does not need to be erased, or "outgrown;" it needs to be restored.

10. All people are either damned or saved via male headship.

In Adam, all die, including Eve.  She is in him as much as any of us are.  Woman's sin brings a curse in two areas--childbearing and marriage.  Man's sin brings a curse on the entire earth, along with death itself.  "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin . . ." (Romans 5:12).  Thus:

I.  Sin entered the world through one man (Adam) even though Eve ate the fruit first.

II.  Death came to all men through Adam’s sin, even though Eve ate the fruit first.

It follows from the above facts that

(1)     Adam has a special kind of relationship to God that Eve does not:  God held him primarily responsible for the disobedience of either of them.

(2)     Adam has a special kind of relationship to Eve that Eve does not have to Adam:  headship.

(3)     Adam has a special kind of relationship to the human race that Eve does not:  He is the one who as the head is responsible for having brought death to the race.

         (On the other hand, Eve has a special kind of relationship to the human race that Adam does not: she is the mother of all the living.)

Conclusion:  Adam and Eve are not interchangeable in their relationship

         -  to God

         -  to each other

         -  to the rest of the human race

Yet, in the Gospel male headship is also the dynamic by which we are all saved.  "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive ... " (I Corinthians 15:22)

The point:  when they attempt to abolish male headship, the egalitarians do not realize what they are doing, because they do not understand what they are undoing.[20]

Respectfully submitted,

Mel Bitikofer

Bob Snyder

Willi Snyder


[1] The following paragraph is adapted from Ray Ortlund, Jr.’s introduction to his exposition of Genesis 1-3 in Chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, editors; Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991, page 86.  The entire book (482 pages) is available for free downloading in Adobe PDF format on the Internet here.

[2] All Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, New International Version.  Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society.  Used by permission.

[3] In fairness to Erickson it must be noted that he adds a footnote to the above:  "This is not to say that there are no biblical principles that apply to these issues, but that these issues are not directly dealt with here."

[4] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition, Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1998, page 565.

[5] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, editors; Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991, pages 65-66.

 [6] “Saved through childbearing”, 1 Tim 2:15:  It is outside the scope of this article, but a plausible explanation of this difficult verse is given here.

[7] International Council for Gender Studies, P. O. Box 702, Waxahachie, TX 75168, 1-800-317-6958.

[8] A detailed explanation of each of these points may be found as Appendix A at the end of this document.

[9] I Cor 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

[10] Note that Jesus, who so fearlessly challenged the status quo, including its treatment of women, nevertheless chose 12 males as apostles.  Jesus knew this was an eternal decision.  According to Rev 21:14 the names of these 12 male apostles will be written on the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem.  He could easily have chosen six married couples or six each of single men and women or some combination if he had wanted to communicate that male headship is not God’s way.  That Jesus Christ, God’s Son, did not do this is consistent with and confirmation of male headship ordained at Creation before the Fall.

[11] See Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness:  Matt 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13.

[12] John 10:35-36:  “If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God's Son’?”

[13] Luke 24:25-27:  25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"  And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

[14] We believe the youth pastor should be male because he would exercise teaching and other authority over young men who are no longer under the authority of their parents.  We also expect that the youth pastor would work closely with the pastor and occasionally, or even frequently, substitute for him.

[15] No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. . .  God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

[16] But the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herdsmen and said, "The water is ours!" So he named the well Esek, because they disputed with him.  Then they dug another well, but they quarreled over that one also; so he named it Sitnah.  He moved on from there and dug another well, and no one quarreled over it. He named it Rehoboth, saying,  "Now the LORD has given us room and we will flourish in the land."

[17] Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."  The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered.  Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

[18] When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses,  saying, "I drew him out of the water."

[19] And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

[20] Adapted from a post by Bill Mouser posted April 5, 1999 to the email discussion list of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org, now known as the Complementarian Christian Coalition Forum, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CCC-Forum]